hankjam
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 4,316
- Type of diabetes
- Treatment type
- Diet only
I did actually type a 2.... and then... something came over me.Don't you mean No 2?
I did actually type a 2.... and then... something came over me.Don't you mean No 2?
"
What are the symptoms of too much fiber?
The recommended daily intake of fiber is 25 grams per day for women and 38 grams per day for men. However, some experts estimate as much as 95 percent of the population don’t ingest this much fiber.
While it appears most people fall short of their recommended fiber intake, it’s actually possible to have too much fiber, especially if you increase your fiber intake very quickly. Too much fiber can cause:
bloating
abdominal pain
flatulence
loose stools or diarrhea
constipation
temporary weight gain
intestinal blockage in people with Crohn’s disease
reduced blood sugar levels, which is important to know if you have diabetes
Call your doctor right away if you’re experiencing nausea, vomiting, a high fever, or a complete inability to pass gas or stool."
So it would seem you can after all have too much of a good thing.
https://www.healthline.com/health/food-nutrition/too-much-fiber
Fibre is good for health? Maybe not:
https://www.gutsense.org/fiber-menace/about-fiber-menace-book.html
There are lots of references to scientific/medical papers.
My opinion is that the advice to consume lots of fibre for good health is in the same category as the advice to consume lots of carbs, eat margarine instead of butter, eat vegetable oil instead of animal fat, avoid saturated fat, limit dairy and red meat, consume very little salt, etc - i.e. not based on proper evidence.
Me too! Well said.Yes, and I get those symptoms with less than 10g of fibre a day.
Thank you for this @JohnEGreen
It is another great example of why one portion of fibre really doesn’t fit all.
Mind you, I am perfectly happy for all those who need/flourish on 30+g of fibre to carry on doing so.
In fact, they can have mine!
So you are OK telling people they shouldn’t criticise a report they haven’t read in depth (you say this in several posts on this thread).
But then you happily criticise a book you haven’t read at all? Actually, your post comes across as mocking said book.
Can’t have it both ways, or you look hypocritical.
Incidentally, I have not read the report OR the book, since I know EXACTLY how much fibre my body tolerates (very little), and I will take my own unfortunate Disaster Pants experiences over any historically questionable* study any day.
*. By historically questionable, I mean that Low Carbing as an identifiable ‘thing’ is new. So asking people decades ago how they ate, and then assuming that a contemporary low carb way of eating is comparable is just a nonsense. Smacks of grandstanding to increase pay per view.
More on the EAT-Lancet consortium:
https://www.efanews.eu/item/6053-the-eat-lancet-commission-s-controversial-campaign.html
My "problem" as you call it is that nutrition "science" based on epidemiology is essentially hocus pocus and about as accurate as astrology. Even scarier when they try to pretend they are experts in environmental science as well. I'm more persuaded by Prof John Ioannidis on the subject:What is your problem with EAT-Lancet?
@midnightrider
(Referring to post #88)
This is getting nowhere, is it?
You seem to have missed the point of my post entirely.
We ALL make decisions on what info we accept based on subjective motives. It is human nature. Anyone who claims to be objective is kidding themselves. That is you, me, everyone.
The key (in studies, forums and generally in life) is to recognise bias, in ourselves and others. Since my post clearly did that (I spent 2 paragraphs explaining it), your subsequent declaration of it is redundant.
And as for your continued repetition that the Guardian is quoting quality scientific research... nope. I distrust decades long observational studies. I consider them unreliable. I think @Dillinger expressed it beautifully.
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, and have stated it repeatedly on this thread. But that does not stop other people holding different views, and also stating them. Discussion is the lifeblood of this forum. And people holding views that differ - and expressing them - adds to the forum rather than detracting from it. So long as the debate stays civil.
As someone with more than 30 years experience of epidemiological research, I would like to know why you think this is hocus pocus. Do you have any scientific training or do you speak with the benefit of some other knowledge.My "problem" as you call it is that nutrition "science" based on epidemiology is essentially hocus pocus and about as accurate as astrology. Even scarier when they try to pretend they are experts in environmental science as well. I'm more persuaded by Prof John Ioannidis on the subject:
As someone with more than 30 years experience of epidemiological research, I would like to know why you think this is hocus pocus. Do you have any scientific training or do you speak with the benefit of some other knowledge.
Please just think what you are saying and stop insulting people. You may have a reason to dislike scientists, but the world has moved on since the enlightenment.
As you replied with 7 minutes of @Indy51 's video being posted I can fairly assume you have not watched the 37 minute video.As someone with more than 30 years experience of epidemiological research, I would like to know why you think this is hocus pocus. Do you have any scientific training or do you speak with the benefit of some other knowledge.
Please just think what you are saying and stop insulting people. You may have a reason to dislike scientists, but the world has moved on since the enlightenment.